Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: Forest remains relatively intact though unsustainable hunting has already resulted in the lost of many large bodied wildlife species. This forest is located between several KBAs
Evidence B:The EOI details the biodiversity importance of the area.
Evidence C:The area of Ngoyla-Mintoum is of exception significance as far as biodiversity is concerned. It is an element of the TRIDOM, the transborder conservation initiative that includes Dja (Cameroon), Minkebe (Gabon) and Odzala (Congo). Ngoyla-Mintoum is strategically located between Dja and Nki National Park.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Viewed the map
Evidence B:Typically carbon storage for such areas is > 150 CtHa
Evidence C:The area, as all the forests of the TRIDOM, has a high carbon value.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: In Cameroon all rights are effectively vested in the state. Limited rights are theoretically devolved to municipalities. Govt theoretically recognizes IPLCs customary rights but these are not respected or protected, Concessionary rights are granted to private sector companies
Evidence B:The EOI details the joint management of the area
Evidence C:Activities implemented by IPLC started ten years ago in the Ngoyla-Mintoum region. The legislation in Cameroon allows IPLC to co-manage forest resources. In this context, IPLC of Ngoyla-Mintoum have been consulted for by the forest authority when establishing forest management plans.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: It is vaguely described in the text
Evidence B:Again - the EOI details the importance of the area to the Baka communities.
Evidence C:The proposal gives a superficial explanation of the cultural value of Ngoyla Montoum for IPLC.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: Potential allocation of logging concessions and an iron ore mine - could undermine IPLC access to forest resources
Evidence B:As with all such area there are local threats from over hunting and subsistence extraction, but the population density is relatively how at the moment. Real threats come from commercial demands and the overexploitation for timber, mineral resources and conversion to commercial agriculture.
Evidence C:Ngoyla-Mintoum as a corridor between Dja and Nki is under the pressure of many threats: logging, illegal wood extraction, poaching, mining, shifting agriculture and immigration of allogeneic bantou populations.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:The legislation in Cameroon has a provision to allow IPLC to co-manage land and forest resources. However, the poor governance applied to natural resources is impacting IPLC in a major way.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: Hard one to score for Cameroon, because though they theoretically recognize IPLC rights it is municipalities not IPLCs that have management rights.
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:National and sub-national governments recognize the importance of IPLC-led conservation, but there are no concrete examples reported from the Noyla-Mintoun area of implementation of this recognition of IPLC managing natural resources.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: No. There are community forestry initiatives but the benefits accrue to local authorities not IPLCs. There is also safari hunting in the area but no indication that this benefits IPLCs
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:No IPLC-led conservation initiative is described by the proponent. However, some IPLC-led conservation projects are likely to be implemented in the near future through GEF and French government support.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: Vague indication that this project is linked to REDD+ opportunities
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:No other initiated mentioned.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: Awful. Focus more on farmers and local authorities than IPs.
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:The Eol has a component of mapping to identify land managed by IPLC. This component may lead, if the plan is accepted and implemented, in the management of forrest resources by IPLC.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: This seems to be all about developing management plans, monitoring plans with nothing about an FPIC process and no actions to strengthen IPLCs territorial governance capacity and power to abate the threats that are largely external to the IPLCs
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:The activities presented may benefit directly (land use mapping and traditional land tenure) or indirectly (reduction of threats associated with logging and mining) but these activities are largely planned without the active participation of IPLC.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: Making plans will do nothing to abate the current threats. Particularly given the current legal status of IPLCs in Cameroon
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:The over-harvesting of logs, the illegal logging, the rampant poaching and the migration of exogenic bantou populations are major threats that are not addressed in the proposal when they are impacting enormously IPLC.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: The budget has nothing to do with it. The activities are not going to make any difference and do not directly address IP issues or concerns and not once do they mention compliance with FPIC
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:The land tenure mapping and the establishment of management plans of forest areas with the input of IPLC are activities that are promoting the management of natural resources by IPLC.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:The proponent mentions REDD revenues, funding from projects implanted by NGOs as well as financial support from local governments (communes) but none of these options are substantiated.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: None provided
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:135,000 ha are considered in the proposal.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: Totally vague
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:The main additional livelihood mentioned is the benefit in terms of fight against climate change through carbon storage.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: Nope
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:The proponent provides a clear long-term sustainable vision that is entirely based on the proper implementation of the forest management plans for the country and the region of Ngoyla-Mintoum. The reality may be very different is the government is not providing the support and the good governance that are needed for these plans to be executed successfully.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: No because the Govt is focused only on state and civil society. And this project does nothing to advance IPLC engagement in forest management decisions at the national level
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:The Eol clearly builds on the NBSAP II formulated by the government of Cameroon.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: Vague, arm waving about gender. And focused on farming not IP livelihood practices
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:The gender approach is succinct and almost entirely limited to section 15. The approach described is not likely to induce a positive change in roles and responsibilities as they relate to gender.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: None demonstrated
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:The Eol does not integrate IPLC groups as implementer. IPLC are sometimes described as actors, but most of the time as beneficiaries of the project which indicate a lack of innovation.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: No this is no IPLC led
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:IPLC are only beneficiaries of the project, direct beneficiaries but also sometimes indirect beneficiaries,
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: None for IPs and no IP partners noted.
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:IPLC are only beneficiaries of the project, direct beneficiaries but also sometimes indirect beneficiaries,
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: None defined in question 21
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:No precise IPLC groups are mentioned as potential partners of the proponent.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: No skills in working respectfully with IPs and no skills in FPIC
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:The lack of involvement of IPLC groups in the implementation of the project is likely to make it fail in the delivery of its objectives.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: The have managed other $500K level grants but admitted (q26) that their reports and financial statements are “often incomplete or delivered late”
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:Globsud has a limited financial capacity with an annual budget under $200,000 but claims to have managed large projects in the past.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: Not that I could determine
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:There is no indication on the experience with safeguards and GEF